WI: John Lennon Assassinated, 1966

Emperor Norton I · Mar 27, 2013

1966 was a hellish year for the Beatles. They were nearly killed by a spoiled regime in the Philipines, the "Yesterday and Today" cover was so controversial that it had to be recalled and replaced by Capitol records, touring had grown tiresome as the crowds were screaming so loud they couldn't even hear themselves (I think Lennon later described it more as a be-in than a concert), and probably most well known of all, John Lennon made comments of being more popular than Jesus which set off a firestorm with religious Conservatives and especially in the American South, where there were record burnings, protests and pin made up saying things like "To Hell with the Beatles". These factors went into making the Beatles give up touring and exist only as a studio band for the duration of their time together.

The "Bigger than Jesus" controversy was on everyone's mind when they went through the South. When the Beatles were to preform a concert in Memphis, Tennessee oon August 19, 1966, there were televised threats from the local Klan leader. During the concert, someone threw a firecracker on stage, causing a minor panic and everyone to stop for a moment and look at John Lennon. No one would have been surprised if he had been shot.

What if during the tour through the South in 1966 John Lennon had been shot?

Glass Onion · Mar 27, 2013

We lose an awful lot of great material, but that goes without saying. John becomes Saint John/The only Genius in the Beatles decades earlier, albeit without the peace side of it. (Note I am trying to reflect how Lennon was perceived initially after his death, I am not trying to say that that impression was actually accurate)

I think retrospectively it will be said that Rubber Soul was the height of his creative energies, but Revolver will be highly regarded as the final Beatles album.

It will be a fairly major trauma on the pop cultural landscape. Lennon's death and the end of the Beatles will be in the news for some time and will contribute to the sense that things are falling apart.

It will also be a trauma for the other Beatles, particularly as they are present at the scene.
George Harrison probably does not do anything music related in 1967, focusing on his Indian pursuits instead. Paul McCartney may be out of commission for awhile too and it might take him more time than you would normally expect him to put out his first solo album.

Eventually McCartney will write something like "Here Today"

Lennon's death and the split probably kills Brian Epstein a little sooner than historical reality. Another interesting thought is that historically the Beatles contract was renewed in early 1967. Obviously the group is gone. McCartney would insist on it. But would the remaining three be able to be signed as individual artists? Would they want to stay at EMI?
I know a bit obvious and a bit myopic, but wider implications are harder to guess at.

texaskdog · Mar 28, 2013

They probably would have lasted longer. What I thought reading about their breakup is if either John or Paul wasn't there the other 3 probably would have stayed together at least a few more years.

Glass Onion · Mar 28, 2013

texaskdog said:
They probably would have lasted longer. What I thought reading about their breakup is if either John or Paul wasn't there the other 3 probably would have stayed together at least a few more years.

Except that Harrison would have prefered to run off to India in 1967 and one suspects the effect of mourning will only make that more intense. He was sick of working with McXartne as it was by 1967. True the effect of John's death could push them closer together but it us worth notng that while he wrote for Starkey and played on Imagine, until anthology, he never worked with McCartney. Harrison might well have the instinct that the Beatles were gone and that he should spend his time working with people who actually respected him and took him seriously, unlike McCartney.

texaskdog · Mar 28, 2013

Glass Onion said:
Except that Harrison would have prefered to run off to India in 1967 and one suspects the effect of mourning will only make that more intense. He was sick of working with McXartne as it was by 1967. True the effect of John's death could push them closer together but it us worth notng that while he wrote for Starkey and played on Imagine, until anthology, he never worked with McCartney. Harrison might well have the instinct that the Beatles were gone and that he should spend his time working with people who actually respected him and took him seriously, unlike McCartney.

Yeah...I'm guessing in 1970 Harrison & Starr could have kept playing with Lennon but not McCartney. Without Paul's songs on the albums John & George could have easily shared the available space. Funny to realized they put out more than an album a year back then and today's bands record one album every 2 or 3 years, without anywhere near the quality.

In hindsight wondering if, since they didn't tour together, they could have just gotten together every couple of years and put together a great album, and gone of and done their own thing between albums, but I guess they probably couldn't have gotten along for that long.

EnglishCanuck · Mar 28, 2013

As someone who hated John Lennon for most of his later career I'd say he would be remembered more probably and the remainder of the Beatles would see him in a better light.

Though its still 50/50 if the band breaks up considering they have various differences that would need to be addressed.

Glass Onion · Mar 28, 2013

texaskdog said:
Yeah...I'm guessing in 1970 Harrison & Starr could have kept playing with Lennon but not McCartney. Without Paul's songs on the albums John & George could have easily shared the available space. Funny to realized they put out more than an album a year back then and today's bands record one album every 2 or 3 years, without anywhere near the quality.

In hindsight wondering if, since they didn't tour together, they could have just gotten together every couple of years and put together a great album, and gone of and done their own thing between albums, but I guess they probably couldn't have gotten along for that long.

Harrison and Starkey did continue to work with Lennon on an on and off basis through 1973. Starkey was the drummer on Plastic Ono Band, George Harrison played on Imagine, and all three performed together on I am the Greatest, a song Lennon wrote for Starkey. The two problems are Lennon absolutely not wanting to be straight jacketed in a group again, and his problems with Harrison in 1968-1969. By 1970 things had gotten better but during that time Lennon was angry at Harrison, because of the three other members, he was the most vocal about his disdain for Ono.

In 1973 Harrison actually advocated for such a group, but Lennon recoiled at the thought of being trapped again.

texaskdog · Mar 28, 2013

Glass Onion said:
Harrison and Starkey did continue to work with Lennon on an on and off basis through 1973. Starkey was the drummer on Plastic Ono Band, George Harrison played on Imagine, and all three performed together on I am the Greatest, a song Lennon wrote for Starkey. The two problems are Lennon absolutely not wanting to be straight jacketed in a group again, and his problems with Harrison in 1968-1969. By 1970 things had gotten better but during that time Lennon was angry at Harrison, because of the three other members, he was the most vocal about his disdain for Ono.

In 1973 Harrison actually advocated for such a group, but Lennon recoiled at the thought of being trapped again.

I'm surprised their post Beatle output wasn't better. I like Wings more than most, though his first album was pretty bad, and steep decline after Wings broke up. Lennon had some good stuff. Harrison had one really good album and that's it, and Ringo is, well, Ringo!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrSSxlu4ns8 Something I found once, Lennon & McCartney together in 74

BillyShears · Mar 28, 2013

Glass Onion said:
We lose an awful lot of great material, but that goes without saying. John becomes Saint John/The only Genius in the Beatles decades earlier, albeit without the peace side of it. (Note I am trying to reflect how Lennon was perceived initially after his death, I am not trying to say that that impression was actually accurate)

I think retrospectively it will be said that Rubber Soul was the height of his creative energies, but Revolver will be highly regarded as the final Beatles album.

It will be a fairly major trauma on the pop cultural landscape. Lennon's death and the end of the Beatles will be in the news for some time and will contribute to the sense that things are falling apart.

It will also be a trauma for the other Beatles, particularly as they are present at the scene.
George Harrison probably does not do anything music related in 1967, focusing on his Indian pursuits instead. Paul McCartney may be out of commission for awhile too and it might take him more time than you would normally expect him to put out his first solo album.

Eventually McCartney will write something like "Here Today"

Lennon's death and the split probably kills Brian Epstein a little sooner than historical reality. Another interesting thought is that historically the Beatles contract was renewed in early 1967. Obviously the group is gone. McCartney would insist on it. But would the remaining three be able to be signed as individual artists? Would they want to stay at EMI?
I know a bit obvious and a bit myopic, but wider implications are harder to guess at.

Macca would stay at EMI with George Martin, he got on well with the management like Lockwood at the time, very old school but cheery and in-house - but like McCartney himself.